Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Setting as Selling Point?

[JoeGKushner]

One of the things that I believe Pathfinder will benefit from as it continues to publish material, is that unlike WoTC, they are committed to a setting and are providing a lot of support for that setting.

WoTC's method of 'fire and forget' (print products) may be a weakness for those who enjoy getting more details from their setting than even a very strong core book can provide.

Opinions?

Does campaign setting detail matter?

Will the PDF support for Eberron and Forgotten Realms make up the huge difference beteween doing print products even though Paizo IS doing print products?

 

[ggroy]

One of the things that I believe Pathfinder will benefit from as it continues to publish material, is that unlike WoTC, they are committed to a setting and are providing a lot of support for that setting.

WoTC's method of 'fire and forget' (print products) may be a weakness for those who enjoy getting more details from their setting than even a very strong core book can provide.

Opinions?

Does campaign setting detail matter?

I really like the Golarion setting for Pathfinder. I'm presently using it for my 4E game instead of the generic WotC settings like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc ...

Though, I don't believe Golarion will make me a convert to the Pathfinder PFRPG. To me, the Golarion setting is capable of selling itself on its own merits, largely independent of PFRPG.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I 100% agree.

When I buy a published setting I want as much detail as possible. I can ditch and/or change what I don't want and use the rest. If I wanted to have to create stuff I would do my own campaign. 3E FR book is what I expect at a minimum (the extra books were a bonus), but the 4E 2 books are very poor for a setting. Even with DDi support.

Conversely I really like the 4E way for use IMC because they are really good for mining for ideas for a homebrew campaign, no much to wade through!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Honestly, trying your game to a setting in a strong way is a real put-off for me. I like homebrew worlds and changing them frequently to match the kind of game I like to run this year. I usually think of an adventure path, set up the world simply, and elt hte characters go in ti. So perhaps mroe of a sandbox game style is what I prefer.

One thing I hated about FR in 2E and 3.X was the extreme amount of detail. Not only were vast parts detialed, but many players would practially memorize the books nad be alert for the slightest amount of difference form Canon that the DM brought to the table. I am not one oto memorize lots of details about settings, so maybe Iam nto a good GM for that kind of player, but that lkind of detail puts me off settings and game systems tied to those settings like turning off a light.

I really think it limits the game more than a bit.

 

[ggroy]

One thing I hated about FR in 2E and 3.X was the extreme amount of detail. Not only were vast parts detialed, but many players would practially memorize the books nad be alert for the slightest amount of difference form Canon that the DM brought to the table. I am not one oto memorize lots of details about settings, so maybe Iam nto a good GM for that kind of player, but that lkind of detail puts me off settings and game systems tied to those settings like turning off a light.

In my first 3.5E game, some of the other players were hardcore Forgotten Realms fans. During the game, they were literally "canon lawyering" all the time and constantly arguing with the DM over minutiae. After several months of this, the DM finally gave up and just said that we were in an "alternate Forgotten Realms timeline and world". Two of the "canon lawyers" ended up quitting the game over that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'd say that 50% of home games using a homebrew setting is a low estimate. Given this, I can't really see how a published setting could be that big of a draw or deal-breaker.

That being said, I thought the fact that Pathfinder wasn't 4E was its main selling point.

 

[jensun]

I generally disagree.

Settings will mostly be used by those not creating their own. Of those groups they will be of most interest to the GM rather than players.

So you are talking about a fraction of a fraction of your player base interested in buying your product.

Its probably worth pointing out that it wasn't a strategy which worked very well for TSR.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Well the PFRPG is not tied to the setting. They have the same name that was a bardning call something to help with IP and getting them into stores.

The rpg will use their take on settings and the god list from the setting but is not tied to the setting.

 

[carmachu]

One of the things that I believe Pathfinder will benefit from as it continues to publish material, is that unlike WoTC, they are committed to a setting and are providing a lot of support for that setting.

WoTC's method of 'fire and forget' (print products) may be a weakness for those who enjoy getting more details from their setting than even a very strong core book can provide.

Opinions?

Does campaign setting detail matter?

Will the PDF support for Eberron and Forgotten Realms make up the huge difference beteween doing print products even though Paizo IS doing print products?

It depends on what WOTC does with its campaign settings this time around.

Piazo's strengths, among them is the setting. Its large enough to fit into any kind of setting, or you can simple just use one small slice. And could fit any adventure anywhere.

Its usuable in large world settings, or just small adventures, whatever you need. As long as the support materials-adventures and AP's, stay at the same quality, its definately a plus.

 

[DragonBelow]

It seemed to have worked for WotC in 3e though, Eberron has more than a dozen hardbacks and 5 adventures. FR had ever more than that. The difference I think is that they focused on only a couple of settings, unlike TSR which came up with new ones all the time.

Paizo does only one setting, and the largest book so far is the CS itself, the rest in the chronicle series, which expand the information found in the CS, are only 64 pages. They include lots of hooks, ideas and flavor but without going into too much detail, giving GMs room to add/develop their own stuff.

 

[NiTessine]

I generally disagree.

Settings will mostly be used by those not creating their own. Of those groups they will be of most interest to the GM rather than players.

So you are talking about a fraction of a fraction of your player base interested in buying your product.

Its probably worth pointing out that it wasn't a strategy which worked very well for TSR.

No, the strategy that did not work out well for TSR was publishing five setting lines at the same time that were effectively competing with each other.

Paizo has one setting.

As for a major selling point... the key here is that it's a good setting.

Personally, I prefer Paizo's setting model to what WotC is doing with 4E, without even going to the issue of quality. Paizo produces a wealth of setting information but does not go into the deep detail level except in adventure modules that require it, leaving the DM room to tell his own stories in the setting.

As far as I can tell, there's also no metaplot.

 

[Dimitris]

I like very much the Pathfinder setting. I think is beyond comparison with any D&D campaign resource material we have read before.

My opinion is that the system and the world is tightly connected. I cannot use 4e for this setting. It seems that 4e is made for a band of superheroes and a series of encounters somehow connected. This tabletop-encounters-game-view goes deeply within the system of 4e. In Golarion, the baker in your neighborhood has got a stat block like you. He is not a minion or a DM monster.

Dimitris

 

[jensun]

I cannot use 4e for this setting. It seems that 4e is made for a band of superheroes and a series of encounters somehow connected. This tabletop-encounters-game-view goes deeply within the system of 4e. In Golarion, the baker in your neighborhood has got a stat block like you. He is not a minion or a DM monster.

This isn't how I run 4e or how any 4e AP I have read since it came out runs it.

 

[vagabundo]

I like very much the Pathfinder setting. I think is beyond comparison with any D&D campaign resource material we have read before.

My opinion is that the system and the world is tightly connected. I cannot use 4e for this setting. It seems that 4e is made for a band of superheroes and a series of encounters somehow connected. This tabletop-encounters-game-view goes deeply within the system of 4e. In Golarion, the baker in your neighborhood has got a stat block like you. He is not a minion or a DM monster.

Dimitris

4e is very flexible and a joy to create stuff for. Anyway 4e and 3e a similar enough, in concepts, that conversion between the two is a dream.

That baker would be a minion, most of the stat block ignored in my game, and I highly doubt it would impact much on the feel or fluff of the setting.

 

[DaveMage]

I am really surprised that 4E hasn't released a "signature" setting that is unique to that ruleset.

They do have the "points of light" theme, but that's not really a setting.

Eberron was (at the time of release) unique to 3.5. 2E has a bunch of settings unique to it, and, of course, 1E was mainly Greyhawk (until Dragonlance and FR came along).

 

[an_idol_mind]

Golarion is to the Pathfinder RPG what Greyhawk was to 3rd edition D&D: an implied setting but nothing more. (The difference being that Golarion, unlike Greyhawk, is actually getting some product The core books have traces of Golarion in it, such as the gods and a few concepts that originated in adventure paths (goblin dogs in the Bestiary, for example), but it doesn't seem like Paizo will be making a strong push to tie the RPG in with Golarion.

That said, I think that each of Paizo's product lines (the adventure paths, individual modules, the companions, and now the RPG line) do a fine job of stimulating interest in their other lines simple because of the level of quality they maintain. If Paizo didn't already have a reputation for solid products through their setting-specific stuff, I don't think there would be as much interest in the RPG as there is. Likewise, someone checking out the RPG for the first time will probably be more interested in their other lines because of that high quality.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I am really surprised that 4E hasn't released a "signature" setting that is unique to that ruleset.

They do have the "points of light" theme, but that's not really a setting.

Eberron was (at the time of release) unique to 3.5. 2E has a bunch of settings unique to it, and, of course, 1E was mainly Greyhawk (until Dragonlance and FR came along).

Takes time, i think. If it were me, i´d bring out the new setting as 4th (heh), right after the more traditional 2010 one. The edition has to realize what it is, before it can tailor-make a setting for its needs.

 

[Agamon]

My opinion is that the system and the world is tightly connected. I cannot use 4e for this setting. It seems that 4e is made for a band of superheroes and a series of encounters somehow connected. This tabletop-encounters-game-view goes deeply within the system of 4e. In Golarion, the baker in your neighborhood has got a stat block like you. He is not a minion or a DM monster.

I like how the baker in 4e has no stat block, because he's not a minion or DM monster. Description and personlaity traits are far more important than stat blocks for non-combat NPCs.

I like Golarion, and neraly ran my new campaign in it, but went for FR instead, more for player recognition of the setting (none of whom are cannon lawyers).

And yes, 4e can be played as more than a tabletop miniatures game, or maybe I'm playing it wrong...

 

[Umbran]

Opinions?

Does campaign setting detail matter?

My guess (and it is only a guess) is no, it won't matter that much.

From watching these boards, the thing that seems to be driving folks to Paizo is the ruleset - these are people who are already playing some 3.x variant, and want to continue. They aren't motivated by the setting in particular.

 

[EATherrian]

I'm a setting junkie and I think that Golarion is easily in my 2nd or 3rd greatest setting slot. It's actually scary close to how my main home brew has turned out. As for it as a selling point, I don't run modules but I buy every Pathfinder AP just for the Golarion information that is held within. If I wasn't so obsessed with making my own perfect world (an impossibility I know) I would use Golarion in a heartbeat.